11. The Windsor Continuation Group Report asks whether the Anglican Communion suffers from an “ecclesial deficit.”[6] In other words, do we have the necessary theological, structural and cultural foundations to sustain the life of the Communion? We need “to move to communion with autonomy and accountability”[7]; to develop the capacity to address divisive issues in a timely and effective way, and to learn “the responsibilities and obligations of interdependence”[8]. We affirm the recommendation of the Windsor Continuation Group that work will need to be done to develop the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Covenant. With the Windsor Continuation Group, we encourage the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Anglican Communion Office to proceed with this work. We affirm the decision to establish the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission for Unity, Faith and Order. We recognise the need for the Primates’ Meeting to be engaged at every stage with all these developments.
12. There are continuing deep differences especially over the issues of the election of bishops in same-gender unions, Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, and on cross-border interventions. The moratoria, requested by the Windsor Report and reaffirmed by the majority of bishops at the Lambeth Conference, were much discussed. If a way forward is to be found and mutual trust to be re-established, it is imperative that further aggravation and acts which cause offence, misunderstanding or hostility cease. While we are aware of the depth of conscientious conviction involved, the position of the Communion defined by the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its entirety remains, and gracious restraint on all three fronts is urgently needed to open the way for transforming conversation.
13. This conversation will include continuing the Listening Process[9], and the “Bible in the Church” Project. It is urgent that we as primates, with the rest of the Communion, directly study the scriptures and explore the subject of human sexuality together in order to help us find a common understanding.
That’s it. Nothing eccept more endless process. The AC is a dead letter.
TEC has made good its escape.
As someone has written elsewhere, it will be interesting to see what kind of “gracious restraint” is on tap for GC2009.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. Paul’s, Durant, Iowa
RE: “in order to help us find a common understanding. . . . ”
In order for that to happen, the Anglicans within the Anglican Communion would have to share a common gospel and faith first.
This is the best that they could do? Pathetic.
We’ve seen ++Rowan’s “mediations” before, outcome already known, his side (meaning the progressives) WIN!!!
Grandmother in SC
Unanimous acceptance of footnote 11? Treachery.
A pleasant reminder of a statement that actually means something, from December 2008:
Statement by GAFCON Primates
Primates of the GAFCON Primates’ Council meeting in London have issued the following statement about the Province of the Anglican Church in North America.
We welcome the news of the North American Anglican Province in formation. We fully support this development with our prayer and blessing, since it demonstrates the determination of these faithful Christians to remain authentic Anglicans.
North American Anglicans have been tragically divided since 2003 when activities condemned by the clear teaching of Scripture and the vast majority of the Anglican Communion were publicly endorsed. This has left many Anglicans without a proper spiritual home. The steps taken to form the new Province are a necessary initiative. A new Province will draw together in unity many of those who wish to remain faithful to the teaching of God’s word, and also create the highest level of fellowship possible with the wider Anglican Communion.
Furthermore, it releases the energy of many Anglican Christians to be involved in mission, free from the difficulties of remaining in fellowship with those who have so clearly disregarded the word of God.
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. Paul’s Church, Durant, Iowa
Well, the undisclosed discussions probably hold more value than the published minutes. Don’t forget that what is published is that part that all/most can agree on.
We’ll see.
Don
To me this dysfunctional communiqué bears all the marks of the absolute minimum that any of the Primates were able to agree. No doubt more information about how they got to this stage will come out in due course.
[i]If a way forward is to be found and mutual trust to be re-established, it is imperative that further aggravation and acts which cause offence, misunderstanding or hostility cease.[/i]
And who is going to hold both parties accountable so that these acts cease? Who is going to manage the accountability process? IMHO, it should be the ABC, but our current ABC is incapable of doing this. He is a theologian and an academic. (BTW, I’m not faulting him for this. In fact, I admire his intellect.) Therefore, since this is clearly not part of his gifting or personality, I would like to suggest that he should appoint someone, someone like an ecclesiastical version of former Senator George Mitchell, to oversee these matters.
I agree that there were probably (hopefully) pretty robust discussions about the state of the communion that aren’t reflected in the communique. The problem is, none of that makes any difference. The communique states what the results of the meeting are, and they are pathetic and profoundly unhelpful in arresting the disintegration of the communion.
#11
The problem with that idea is whoever he would appoint would be a Kenneth Keiran (sp) or +Aspinall and we’d be as bad off as we are now.
From Footnote 11: “WCG believes that the advent of schemes such as the Communion Partners Fellowship and the Episcopal Visitors scheme instituted by the Presiding Bishop in the United States should be sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated within the Episcopal Church from recent developments.”
Lol.
Of course it does.
And we can tell that those two bodies are “sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated within the Episcopal Church” by all the folks leaving the Episcopal Church.
Rich.
Right on, Sarah. “Well, Mr. Customer, let me tell you what features we’ve decided you want in your software.” A good way to lose market share.
how much longer will the GS put up with this process? It would appear to be going nowhere…..
16 РIf this communiuq̩ was agreed to unanimously, then it looks like the GS is in it for the long haul.
I wish them the best. I no longer have the stomach for ersatz “bishops” and “communions.”
Check out the WCG Report.
I would imagine the GS Primates will simply continue doing what they’re doing. TEC is going to; why not them? All further developments will be outside the framework of the alleged “Instruments of Communion.” The AC is going to be dysfunctional for a few years, and that’s that.
Dr. Williams should go home and try mediation in his own church first.
And so the curtain falls on the Anglican Communion as previously known. Now the curtain will rise on TEC as it continues to burn to the ground. Another curtain will rise on the Global South as they move on.
Thanks to all of those who have twiddled their months and years away in endless debate for a helluva lot of nothing.
From footnote 11: “It is not for individual groups to claim the terms on which they will relate to the Communion.” Good luck getting TEC’s General Convention to agree.
For once, DC, we agree. And good luck getting this potted plant of an ABC to do a thing about it.
I’ll be interested to see what the ACI has to say about this, as well as ++Venables, ++Orombi, ++Akinola, et al.
Who writes this crap and do they administer drug to the signatories before they sign?
“There is no consensus among us about how this new entity should be regarded, but we are unanimous in supporting the recommendation in paragraph 101 of the Windsor Continuation Group Report.” How do those who support ACNA understand the statement here and its plain language of ‘unanimous support’? Would this not mean that +Akinola, +Orambi, +Kolini and other ACNA supporters were part of the ‘unanimous support’? I say this only to raise a question about the ACNA leaders and their involvement in this communique. It will be important to let the dust settle and hear more widely what went on.
God is still in His heaven and His hand is not too short to save. Perhaps we are entering a new time for the church? Perhaps something beyond our current mental models of church and institution? It is easy to be disheartened but let us hope in Him who died for us and rose again and promised to return. and let us stand for Him today with courage regardless of the institutional rot!
Jeff, that maybe so, but it is clear that the official offices of the AC have thrown the North American orthodox under the bus.
#25 Seitz-ACI, gloating is bad form.
#25 — Mr Phil, I don’t know who you are but I assure you my question was very straightforward and without a hint of what you call ‘gloating.’ I am serious and curious. Perhaps the ACNA supporters amongst the Primates have reason to believe this is a good way forward. I don’t know. I suspect in time we will find out. I am not involved in ACNA so have no way of knowing. Grace and peace.
#27…The bus analogy is a good one, BUT ….. I think this is being thrown off the bus, rather than being thrown under it. The ACNA appears to be what is being thrown, but the Anglican Communion bus is headed towards the cliff, and almost past the point of no return. Perhaps it is a blessing to be thrown off. You might have a few bruises to show for it, but you can pick yourself up and keep going. Wonder if those who pushed us off the bus, did so for our own safety and are getting ready to jump themselves?
Well, it does clear the air. The AC is in TEC’s hip pocket and that is that.
#30 – I think that more will be clear when we hear what ++KJS, ++Orombi, ++Venables, and ++Akinola have to say about the meeting. In fact, I think that this communique will be largely irrelevant after they issue their respective press releases.
This is so much verbage signifying nothing which would solve the crisis in the Anglican Communion. Much like the Lambeth statement. But I want to hear what the Gafcon and Global South Primates have to say about the meeting before passing final judgement on it.
I do have to add that at this point I do feel like I have been thrown under the bus.
#25 – I take your question at face value (““There is no consensus among us about how this new entity should be regarded, but we are unanimous in supporting the recommendation in paragraph 101 of the Windsor Continuation Group Report.†How do those who support ACNA understand the statement here and its plain language of ‘unanimous support’?), and have the same question. I look forward to hearing what the primates supporting GAFCON and the ACNA have to say. But while I am sure that the first clause about “no consensus” is accurate, I have my suspicions as to the accuracy of the understanding of the second clause regarding WCGR para 101. I think it is hard to reconcile Akinola’s views with the admonition not to proselytize in particular, unless Schori has herself proselytized him into the TEC party. Which seems unlikely. Were they really unanimous on all of that particular paragraph? Note that we are at the parlous state where one cannot trust an Archbishop of Canterbury, so I must reserve judgement on that.
Dr. Seitz: Personally, I don’t understand why people are so shocked that the GAFCON primates signed on to Communique Para. 14. I would lay out a few principles first:
1. A negotiated settlement is the best chance to actually achieve some Communion recognition and acceptance for the ACNA.
2. A negotiated settlement is the best chance to actually achieve a mutual parting of the ways in North America.
3. It doesn’t matter if the “holding pattern” is supposed to be temporary or not – with TEC’s current trajectory, I think that once the ACNA is accepted in any official Communion form, it will become impossible to kill, and will then most likely transform into a permanent body once it has some time to establish itself.
4. I would think that the GAFCON primates would interpret the “no seeking to recruit and expand their membership by means of preselytisation” rule as NOT preventing the ACNA from accepting TEC parishes and dioceses which have requested protection. I would also think that they would believe that this would not apply at all to TEC dioceses which have violated the sexuality moratoria.
So in light of what I consider to be uncontroversial understandings, I am mystified as to why GAFCON primates would NOT sign on to Para. 14. I don’t see it as “selling out” the ACNA in any way, shape or form, but rather in advancing the ACNA’s quest for eventual Communion status.
As I said a few days ago, I doubt that the GAFCON Primates really care that much what this communque says … in fact, the more vacuous, the better, most likely as far as they are concerned. They probably really don’t care what the present AC or AbofC does or says. They said in the Jerusalem Statement that a new beginning had been made and they will proceed to grow that new entity within the AC until it takes over the AC. They are growing their churches; the rest of the AC are not. They have a significant foothold in NA, which they believe will continue to grow, as TEC continues to diminish … like John the Baptist decreased as Christ increased. I’m with Jeff Marx. Have faith, let the Lord handle this. Be of good faith in our places and continue our prayers, study, and service to others in His name. None of us are diminished by this communique. We must continue just to serve the Lord where we are, keeping the lamp lit, since we know not the hour that the Master comes.
In addition, the WCGR deserves further study. But regarding the points in #25 and 35, above, see, for example, the statement in Para 94 of the WCGR that “There will undoubtedly be Primates and Provinces, such as those involved with Gafcon, which will wish to give recognition to the new body.” How does that reconcile with the statement that everybody unanimously agrees with Para 101 that “Any scheme developed would rely on an undertaking from the present partners to ACNA that they would not seek to recruit and expand their membership by means of proselytisation. WCG believes that the advent of schemes such as the Communion Partners Fellowship and the Episcopal Visitors scheme instituted by the Presiding Bishop in the United States should be sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated within the Episcopal Church from recent developments.” How can a primate want ACNA to be recognized as a separate province and ask it not to grow and come under the Episcopal Visitor scheme at the same time? I don’t see how that is reconciled. Though I can understand how things written by committee can be internally inconsistent. Perhaps Dr. Seitz has some thoughts, or perhaps we are all confused by confused writing.
What is not accepted by this communique is the fact that people, priests and parishes NEED protection from Ms. Schori and her allies. Theirs is a scorched earth policy of convert or be annihilated. They abuse and misuse canon and constitution to their own ends.
I still support the Communion Partner folk whose desire is to stay and witness, however that witness is not negotiable into heresy or the universalism of the ruling party.
It is my hope that the ACNA leaders and the GS will use the time to negotiate and/or facilitate a Communion challenge to the heterodoxy as well as the gracelessness of the Schori ruling party, while protecting the orthodox.
Tragically the whole communique is an exercise of the Rowan Williams policy of letting things develop without any real or effective direction and in this leaderless vacuum Ms. Schori does what she likes.
Subscribing so I will not be banned.
Intercessor
39, the AC does not care what happens to us. And it takes two to negotiate. TEC has won hands down. Why should they negotiate?
I just got a CANA press release via e-mail with CANA (Bp. Martyn Minns) response to the Communique:
[blockquote]CANA Responds to Primates’ Communiqué
HERNDON, Va. (February 5, 2009) – CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns issued a statement in response to the Primates’ Communiqué issued from Alexandria, Egypt, today.
“We are grateful for the hard work of the Primates who met this week in Alexandria, Egypt, in tackling not only important global issues such as the crises in Gaza, Zimbabwe and Sudan but also the brokenness in the Communion brought about by The Episcopal Church.â€
“We applaud their consistent stand for biblical truth and the importance of reconciliation between all peoples and their Creator.
“We welcome the Primates’ unanimous reaffirmation of the entirety of Lambeth 1:10 as the Church’s teaching on human sexuality although we are disappointed that they were not unanimous in their call to repentance for those who continue to defy this teaching.
“We also welcome a period of gracious restraint as the Primates describe it but are distressed by the reality that The Episcopal Church continues to initiate punitive litigation on a massive scale. To date, there are at least 56 lawsuits initiated by The Episcopal Church, or its dioceses, against individual churches, clergy and vestries across the country.
“We are saddened to read that within hours of agreeing to this statement Presiding Bishop Schori is already questioning whether the Primates’ call for gracious restraint is something to which The Episcopal Church wants to make a commitment …’the long-term impact of ‘gracious restraint’ is a matter for General Convention,’ she said in a statement.
“We appreciate the encouragement for those of us connected with the Anglican Church in North America to continue to move forward as faithful Anglicans and to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ.â€
[/blockquote]
I think it is incumbent on the Communion Partner’s people to declare forthrightly that their plan does little to nothing for orthodox stuck in revisionist dioceses and does nothing whatsoever for those that have been litigated out of the TEO.
As far as Ms Schori’s Episcopal visitor plan…well, let’s see. She pulled that half-baked scheme out of some sunless place and even some of the visitors didn’t even know about their being participants and, to date, exactly zero of the hundreds of thousands of disaffected have availed themselves of it.
+Martyn’s response is very charitable overall. The last paragraph however has me totally baffled:
[i]“We appreciate the encouragement for those of us connected with the Anglican Church in North America to continue to move forward as faithful Anglicans and to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ.†[/i]
How does that square with the non-proselytization section of the Communique? I don’t see much if any encouragement of ACNA in the Communique, but then again I’ve only skimmed it very quickly.
George Conger is reporting for TLC that
[blockquote]However, the WCG was a report prepared by a committee appointed by Archbishop Williams and presented by him to the primates as a resource document and was not submitted to a vote.[/blockquote]
So, while the Communique was apparently supported unanimously, it seems clear that one cannot say the same for the WCG report.
[url=http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2009/2/5/communion-deeply-divided-but-no-schism-archbishop-williams-says]Here’s the article[/url]
+Minns’ entire statement is an exercise in denial, as usual:
the brokenness in the Communion brought about by The Episcopal Church
even though border crossing was again mentioned and no blame was placed in the Communique for the state of the AC.
We also welcome a period of gracious restraint as the Primates describe it but are distressed by the reality that The Episcopal Church continues to initiate punitive litigation on a massive scale. To date, there are at least 56 lawsuits initiated by The Episcopal Church, or its dioceses, against individual churches, clergy and vestries across the country.
Where did the Communique’ mention lawsuits? Is +Minns truly arguing that this is in any way implied?
We appreciate the encouragement for those of us connected with the Anglican Church in North America to continue to move forward as faithful Anglicans and to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ.â€
Yet another in the long line of what now can only be considered lies. Claiming to be faithful Anglicans belies the fact that CANA, ACNA, et al are not members of the AC. +Minns knows this but continues to obfuscate the facts from those to whom he promised full membership in the Anglican Communion. This is spin at its best.
An alternative way of reading the communique would be to see that it supports “the recommendation” of the WCG for “mediated conversation”, but not the details suggested by the WCG.
#44…. That is a brilliant place straight out of the TEC playbook. Take something and interpret it the way you need it to suit what you are doing, smile and say “THANK YOU!”
As far as strategy goes, Bishop Minns has made a brilliant move. He is being very “global” and speaking to them in their own language. I’m not sure what the Anglican word for Episcobabble is (Anglobabble?), but he is speaking a language he knows that deep down, they understand all too well.
That should be “brilliant play”
In follow up to +Martyn’s final comment in the CANA response, even if I can’t see where he finds encouragement for ACNA’s witness in the Communique, I should note I am very glad to see the reaffirmation of CANA’s / ACNA’s intent to keep the focus on spreading the Good News of Christ as central to their mission and identity. In some way’s it’s a very “in your face” statement by +Martyn given the non-proselytization clause. Good for him.
Karen B.: I remain mystified at why this non-proselytization section is seen as such a stumbling block. I see this as no more troubling then the non-initiation section in the Dromantine Communique. My Meriam-Webster dictionary defines proselytize in this way:
1. to induce someone to convert to one’s faith
2. to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution or cause
The word “induce” is defined as:
1a. to move by persuasion or influence
1b. to call forth or bring about by influence or stimulation
It seems to me that too many conservative commentators here interpret “proselytise” in a passive sense – i.e. define it as “permitting someone to join one’s party, institution or cause”. But that’s not what the dictionary says.
At the Lambeth Conference, the WCG proposed the “holding bay” for departed parishes with the goal for eventual folding back into TEC and the ACoC. At the press conference Clive Hanford made it very clear that the “holding bay” was for previously seperated parishes ONLY, and was not meant to accept any departing parishes.
Note, Karen, the key changes. First, the most current WCG proposal, while still holding the ACNA out as temporary, drastically downscales the “to be folded back into TEC” language. Second, note the very significant change in language from “no new parishes may join the holding tank” to the ACNA should not “seek to recruit and expand” by means of “proselytisation”.
I think that what is being discouraged in the “non proselytisation” clause is the active, recruitment of conservative parishes in TEC once the ACNA becomes regularized as a full member of the Anglican Communion. Proselytisation refers to positive actions.
Once that is understood, then I think that Martyn is quite right to suggest that WCG para.101 is a positive development for the ACNA.
I think we can expect that the Communion Partner Bishops and Rectors will hold the Episcopal Organization’s feet to the fire at the upcoming General Convention so that means…HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW, HEE, HEE, HEE, HEE, HAW, HAW, HAW!!
I crack me up.
#46: Apparently you disagree with the Archbishop of Canterbury, as I sometimes do, as The Living church stated:
“Archchbishop Williams also declined to call out of the Communion those who had quit The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada for the ACNA, but said the new group ‘is not a province.’â€
The WCGR, incidentally, refers to it as a “province-in-formation”.
Also, the “gracious restraint” refers to border crossings, which are connected to the lawsuits. The WCGR states in para 34 that “One of the aggravating factors in these circumstances has been the fact that a fourth moratorium requested by the unanimous voice of the Primates at Dar es Salaam in 2007 – to see the end of litigation – has also been ignored.” Incidentally, the WCGR at Para 39 sees that it is not cross-border intervention any more if ACNA becomes a new ecclesial entity, though it becomes something separately to be dealt with.
Brian (post 46):
See the Windsor Report and previous communiques and statements from the Primates and ABC regarding TEC’s pre-eminent role in causing the current problems in the Anglican Communion.
As to your other points:
Para. 34 of the WCG: “One of the aggravating factors in these circumstances has been the fact that a fourth moratorium requested by the unanimous voice of the Primates at Dar es Salaam in 2007 – to see the end of litigation – has also been ignored.”
and
Para. 35 of the WCG: “It has to be noted as well that the epicentre of the tensions arising out of the moratoria is located within North America, and largely within TEC…. It is here that actions have been taken that exacerbate the sense of hostility and persecution perceived by some conservatives, including the recent action of the TEC House of Bishops to depose Bishop Bob Duncan of Pittsburgh.”
From this, I am not certain we can say that they supported the entirety of paragraph 101 – the wording is imprecise. After the recommendation located in paragraph 101 are statements that could be construed as relating to how the new entity should be regarded:
It is worth note that the WCG was an ad hoc committee appointed by the ABC. It is unrelated to the body of the Primates Meeting. Thus, individual concepts are commented on, but the report is not received.
Stepping back from this particular portion, however, the context is that of a statement from one instrument of communion. There is historic precedent for another instrument of communion, the ABC, to assume the authority to interfere with, impede, or misrepresent such statements. As some blog commentary has noted, this means that communiques from the primates meeting are unfortunately of unreliable authority within the AC. Of course, this devalues (or decreases the importance) of both the good and the bad within such a communique.
🙄
jamesw re: your 51:
I guess it isn’t so much the word proselytize that troubles me. I’m not really into parsing its definition… But the exact language says:
[i]Any scheme developed would rely on an undertaking from the present partners to ACNA that they would not seek to recruit and expand their membership by means of proselytisation.[/i]
ignoring for now the “by means of” clause, (which I do understand is important to understanding the meaning, and we will have to wait to hear how +Akinola, +Orombi, +Minns, et al understand this), I find the request for an “undertaking” from ACNA to “not seek to” “expand their membership” quite troubling. It’s as if the Primates are in effect placing ACNA under the moratoria, that any expansion of ACNA, would be viewed as a violation of Windsor.
I read the Communique as saying the current ACNA should be invited to participate in a mediated settlement with the goal of freezing ACNA from ANY expansion in the future, i.e. that any future dissidents should be made to use the old Pastoral visitors’ scheme, etc.
It seems to me that the idea that “they” can keep or even request ACNA not to expand or proselytize is absolutely absurd. First, that train left the station when GAFCON was formed and it became a bullet train when ACNA was formed at Wheaton. There is no way on this earth that +Duncan & co. are not going to proselytize and grow as fast and as much as they can, as soon as they can. Unless they do that, there will be not impetus to ever make ACNA a province. This really is not facing reality on the ground by WCG, ABC or the Primates (other than GS Primates).
#36 — not sure why you are addressing your remarks to me, as I have nothing to conjecture on the matter; you could well be right. My remarks had to do with all the outrage from ACNA people given that the Primates of Gafcon were among those who were said to be unanimous in support. That was all. I was just curious and suggested we would need to wait to get further data. grace and peace.
Re: #52, “I crack me up.”
Since “Good Queen Bess” was the founder of “Anglicanism,” I think that we can choose the hit song of 1588, as its anthem. Anyone care to try to update its verses?
Who’s the Fool Now or Martin Said to His Man
Martin said to his man, fie, man, fie
Martin said to his man, who’s the fool, now
Martin said to his man, Fill thou the cup and I the can
Thou hast well drunken man, who’s the fool now
I saw the man in the moon, fie, man, fie
I saw the man in the moon, who’s the fool, now
I saw the man in the moon, Clouting of St. Peter’s shoon
Thou hast well drunken, man, who’s the fool, now
I saw the goose ring the hog, fie, man, fie
I saw the goose ring the hog, who’s the fool, now
I saw the goose ring the hog, saw the snail bite the dog
Thou hast well drunken, man, who’s the fool, now
I saw the hare chase the hound, fie, man, fie
I saw the hare chase the hound, who’s the fool, now
I saw the hare chase the hound, Twenty miles above the ground
Thou hast well drunken, man, who’s the fool, now
I saw the mouse chase the cat, fie, man, fie
I saw the mouse chase the cat, who’s the fool now
I saw the mouse chase the cat, Saw the cheese eat the rat
Thou hast well drunken, man, who’s the fool now
I saw a flea heave a tree, fie, man, fie
I saw a flea heave a tree, who’s the fool now
I saw a flea heave a tree, twenty miles out to sea
Thou hast well drunken, man, who’s the fool now
I saw a maid milk a bull, fie, man, fie
I saw a maid milk a bull, who’s the fool now
I saw a maid milk a bull, at every pull a bucket full
Thou hast well drunken, man, who’s the fool now
Martin said to his man, fie, man, fie
Martin said to his man, who’s the fool, now
Martin said to his man, Fill thou the cup and I the can
Thou hast well drunken man, who’s the fool now
Licensed in 1588 to Thomas Orwin.
It seems to me that the idea that “they†can keep or even request ACNA not to expand or proselytize is absolutely absurd.
Well, it becomes a Catch-22. ACNA is asked by the group which will decide whether they become a Province not to do something. If they don’t do it, they don’t grow and may not become a Province. If they do do it then they definitely will not become a Province.
Karen: I would suggest to you that you are reading your own fears into the clause, rather then letting the clause speak for itself. I think you need to consider the comments and concerns from N.T. Wright and other anti-GAFCON English evangelicals. There is a very strong view out there (whether or not you think it is true) that the GAFCON/ACNA leadership is engaging in strong arm-twisting, manipulation, mob frenzy tactics, etc., in an effort to actively recruit people away from TEC.
I would direct you again to the clause and note that it does NOT prevent recruitment and expansion, but ONLY seeking to recruit and expand their membership by means of proselytisation. The term “proselytisation” typically has a very negative connotation, and usually refers to strong-arm tactics. If the WCG Report meant what you seem to think it did, then why not use clearer language, such as “Any scheme developed would rely on an undertaking from the present partners to ACNA that they would not accept any further parishes or dioceses from either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada. The WCG believes that the advent of schemes…”
Compare this to the statement “President Obama should not seek to be re-elected in 2012 by means of electoral fraud.” Arguing that such a statement is a recommendation to prevent Obama from running for re-election would not make sense – the “by means of” is the controlling part of the sentence.
I would also emphasize to you that the non-proselytisation clause is NOT found in the Communique. Para. 14 of the Communique simply expresses unanimity in supporting “the recommendation” of para. 101 of the WCG Report, that “recommendation” being “professionally mediated conversation.”
Overall, I remain puzzled at how so many posters both here at at StandFirm are so determined to take what I see as a rather positive development and turn it into a negative. Any negotiations regarding the status of the ACNA would almost certainly include some sort of understanding as regards its acceptance of new parishes and dioceses and from which jurisdictions. The key recommendation to focus on is the call for mediated negotiations.
Why wouldn’t they put that request in? After all, it would make TEc look bad if the “breakaways” grew while TEc is shrinking.
#60, not sure this group will make the decison on ACNA being a province. And irrespective of whether ACNA adheres to such a request, strength in numbers over TEC will ultimately win the day in AC or AC will fail itself and another institution will take its place. The skeleton of the British Empire can only hold on so long. Sixty years is a long time to try to hold the AC together based on something that no longer exists.
From here
The communique and the commentary it evokes leads me to conclude that the “leaders” (primates, if you will) are
a. incapable of making unequivocal statements;
b. unwilling to exercise their authority to defend the historic faith of Christianity and to proclaim it clearly;
c. terrified of holding anyone, especially members of the club, accountable to even minimum standards;
d. extremely concerned that sensibilities will be offended and income will be decreased;
e. so enamored of conversation that they will travel to any exotic location to have more.
I do enjoy the enthusiastic tea leave reading on this thread, but it seems to me that any statement which provokes such widely an wildly different negative and positive interpretations is a statement that is worthless the minute it is published.
The “Communion”, such as it is, deserves and has always deserved better.
The meeting agreed that the members of the breakaway groups in the United States and Canada are Anglicans, but did not define their status.
“John-David Schofield [of San Joaquin] is a bishop in the Communion,†Bishop Venables said. He and other bishops “may be been deposed by the Episcopal Church,†but the meeting agreed they remain part of the Anglican Communion.
These are conflicting statements. This is the problem with this type of thing. ++Venables believes that some sort of divine thing happened and made +Schofield a bishop in the Anglican Communion and the reality on the ground is that his status is not defined.
And here again we see reality: It also affirmed the call for a halt to cross-province violations.
and ++Venables denial: both pledged the support of their provinces until a “safe place†had been established for them.
++Orombi’s take on the meeting seems to be more realistic.
Thank you for posting this, JamesW (#64).
It may go a long way in explaining why Gafcon Primates were unanimous in support, which was the original question I posed. +Venables, +Orombi, and +Akinola all signal their positive take.
I must say that I don’t know what is going on. I disagree with playing the semantic gymnastics game that James is proposing. Proselytizing is proselytizing. The great commission is not optional.
A few weeks ago, the Communion partners asked that the CCP-ers don’t proselytize on “their turf”. Gary Lillibridge is a CP-er and on the WCG. Now, the primates say don’t proselytize?
Frankly what is needed is clarification from +Duncan, +Iker, +Geurnsey, +Murdoch, +Minns, ++Orombi, ++Akinola, ++Kolini, ++Nzimbi.
Christopher Johnson says it best:
[blockquote] The Primates know what the problem is. And they’ve had over five years to actually move in the direction of beginning to do something about it. But window-dressing aside, Anglicans are in exactly the same place they were when Robbie got his pointy hat.
If the primates haven’t gotten anywhere near an actual action yet, they never will. If the generals don’t want to fight, there is no reason for the rank-and-file to continue to waste their time. [/blockquote]
Things are not as they seem here.
I don’t think these holy men have folded their cards so easily in deference to such a passive aggressive plan
If they did, being an Anglican has just become counter productive.
More stress and heartache than peace and salvation.
I think this is much less complicated than many here are making it seem. NOTHING is going to happen at the Communion level for many years, possibly even decades. The theatre of action is NOT at the Communion level. The action has now shifted. ACNA exists, it is a reality. It will continue to expand and to grow. It already enjoys the support of well over half the Anglican Communion in terms of numbers. Furthermore, the part of the Communion that supports ACNA is the part of the Communion that is growing. Over the coming years ACNA will continue to evolve, it will continue to build bridges to all remaining orthodox parts of the Anglican Communion, and it will thrive. It does not need formal recognition for any of this to happen. In fact, formal recognition at this point might well force ACNA to conform to certain rules that would make its work more difficult. What ACNA will continue to do, with the blessing of the GAFCON primates, and other primates who support it less publicly, is to change facts on the ground. They have finally understood the strategy of TEC for many years, and they have now adopted it. They understand that words are words and that actions mean much more than words. ACNA’s focus now, and rightly so, will be to continue to change the facts on the ground. In the fullness of time the official recognition will come. What ACNA needs now is what it got, confirmation that the ABC and the Communion have NO doubt that they are still Anglicans. Beyond that, their status is totally unimportant. ACNA has A LOT of work to do in the years ahead. It’s not ready for formal recognition at this point anyway, and, as I mentioned, the ambiguous status is probably MUCH more useful to ACNA in this stage of its formation than official recognition would be! What has changed? NOTHING has changed. What has been going on for over 5 years now will continue to go on — TEC will bless gay marriages, they will surely consecrate more gay bishops. Canada will do the same. More borders will be crossed, more litigation will take place, ACNA will continue to coalesce and to build bridges to other orthodox parts of the Communion. The ABC will continue, effectively, to do nothing. He will take no action that will either discipline TEC or ACNA and its many supporters. He will allow facts to change on the ground and leave to the future the matter of formal recognition. Folks, the theatre of action has shifted. Once ACNA came into formation the whole ball game changed. If your looking for action at the level of Lambeth or the Primates or ACC, you’re looking in the wrong places!
After a review of interviews and articles so far, it seem that we may have been paying too much attention to this clause or that. Perhaps inasmuch as we have so little information to go on, that is understandable.
But the overall thrust, even in much of the secular press, is simply that ACNA is an entity, it is not going away, some key primates support it, and the Anglican Communion should begin negotiating with it over its status. There is more work to be done. The rest is dicta, including the “no prosyletization” clause, whatever it means.
Now, I won’t hold my breath waiting for the Archbishop to appoint a mediator and actually try to resolve this. But I suspect there are a number of primates who won’t be waiting for that either. The “province-in-formation” as the WCGR calls it, continues to form, and is Anglican.